The fall TV season just got darker — and more fascinating — as Charlie Hunnam steps into one of the most unsettling roles of his career: portraying infamous serial killer Ed Gein in the latest season of Ryan Murphy and Ian Brennan’s anthology crime series, Monster.

Following the global success of Dahmer – Monster: The Jeffrey Dahmer Story, this new chapter titled Monster: The Story of Ed Gein revisits the 1950s Wisconsin murderer whose real-life crimes inspired some of Hollywood’s most iconic horror villains — from Norman Bates in Psycho to Leatherface in The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Buffalo Bill in The Silence of the Lambs.

ALSO READ : Trump family linked American Bitcoin seals Nasdaq debut after merger with Gryphon shareholders say yes

But Hunnam says his portrayal is not meant to sensationalize Gein’s gruesome acts — it’s meant to understand them.

“I read every single book that had been written about him — and there were a lot of books,” Hunnam told The Hollywood Reporter at the show’s New York City premiere. “I read all of the court transcriptions, all of his medical records. And then I read the scripts over and over to understand what would drive a human being to do some of the pretty wild things he did — pretty despicable acts.”

“We were serious about understanding the man — not glamorizing him”

Hunnam, known globally for his role as Jax Teller in Sons of Anarchy, admitted that embodying Gein took an emotional toll.

“We were really very serious about trying to understand the man and not just sensationalize this, and certainly not glamorize it at all,” he said.

The 44-year-old actor emphasized that the goal wasn’t to turn Gein into a cinematic monster, but rather to explore the psychological decay that led him there — a story, Hunnam says, about “mental health and the consequences of abuse and isolation.”

Gein, a reclusive farmer, was convicted of multiple murders and grave robberies in the 1950s. His shocking crimes — which included exhuming corpses and crafting household items and clothing from human skin — have haunted American culture for decades.

In portraying such a figure, Hunnam said he had to “disconnect from judgment” and instead focus on the environment that shaped him.

“This was about asking how trauma, isolation, and untreated illness can create something tragic and monstrous,” he explained.

Sarah Paulson’s surprising advice

Interestingly, Hunnam didn’t reach out to Evan Peters — who won an Emmy Award for playing Jeffrey Dahmer in the first Monster season — for advice.

“I’ve never met Evan Peters. I’m an enormous fan of his work. I would love to get to meet him, but I never had an opportunity to,” Hunnam said.

Instead, he turned to another of Ryan Murphy’s regular collaborators: Sarah Paulson, his longtime friend and star of American Horror Story.

“I bumped into Sarah Paulson, who’s worked with Ryan Murphy a lot and tackled some pretty dark characters, and she’s an old friend of mine,” he said. “So I asked her advice about navigating it and she was really kind. She basically said, ‘Challenge yourself. Don’t be afraid. It’s inside you, just look deep and find it.’”

That advice, Hunnam said, gave him the courage to dive fully into the role — even when it became emotionally draining.

Inside Ryan Murphy’s new “Monster” season

The Monster anthology, produced by Netflix and co-created by Murphy and Brennan, aims to explore the psychology of real-life figures who shocked the world.

This new season, however, departs from Dahmer’s urban modern horror to the bleak, rural terror of 1950s America. Shot across eerie Midwestern landscapes, Monster: The Story of Ed Gein reportedly leans less on gore and more on psychological dread — exploring how Gein’s twisted obsession with his mother and his isolated upbringing in Plainfield, Wisconsin, led to his horrific crimes.

Hunnam’s transformation into Gein required months of research, both psychological and physical. Insiders from the production note that the actor adopted Gein’s posture, rural accent, and eerie mannerisms, while spending time in isolation to understand the killer’s mental state.

“Charlie completely disappears into the role,” said one of the producers during the premiere. “He approached it with empathy, not sympathy — and that’s a hard line to walk.”

A balance between horror and humanity

For Hunnam, Monster: The Story of Ed Gein isn’t just another dark drama — it’s a meditation on how society overlooks mental illness until it turns catastrophic.

“We’ve seen the sensationalized versions of Ed Gein in movies for decades,” he said. “But this series looks at what made him — how someone so isolated, traumatized, and untreated could become a reflection of the darker parts of all of us.”

It’s a perspective that mirrors Murphy’s long-standing fascination with human fragility, trauma, and morality — themes that have made his shows like American Horror Story, Ratched, and Feud both horrifying and thought-provoking.

As the series debuts, audiences can expect both a haunting crime story and a chilling character study — one that might force viewers to look beyond the monster and into the broken mind that created him.

In a heartfelt public statement, Jessica Kirson — one of the most respected LGBTQ+ comedians in America — expressed “sincere regret” for performing at the Riyadh Comedy Festival in Saudi Arabia, a country known for its strict laws against homosexuality and suppression of free expression.

Kirson, who has long been celebrated for her candid, emotionally honest comedy, was among more than 50 international comedians who took part in what Saudi officials have billed as “the world’s largest comedy festival.” The event, held from September 26 to October 9, featured top-tier names like Dave Chappelle, Kevin Hart, Bill Burr, Louis C.K., Whitney Cummings, Aziz Ansari, and Pete Davidson.

ALSO READ : The New York Times strikes back at Justin Baldoni with surprise lawsuit over “It Ends With Us” defamation battle… here’s what they’re demanding

However, the lineup quickly drew backlash from human rights advocates and fellow comedians who accused participants of legitimizing a government that continues to persecute women, the LGBTQ+ community, and journalists.

A performance that divided her fans

In a statement shared with The Hollywood Reporter, Kirson admitted she initially saw the festival as an opportunity to make a difference — not a political statement.

“I requested a guarantee that I could be openly out as a lesbian on stage and perform gay material,” Kirson said. “I hoped that this could help LGBTQ+ people in Saudi Arabia feel seen and valued.”

She added that she was “surprised” by the invitation but chose to accept after receiving confirmation that she could speak freely about her identity.

“I am grateful that I was able to do precisely that — to my knowledge, I am the first openly gay comic to talk about it on stage in Saudi Arabia,” she continued. “I received messages from attendees sharing how much it meant to them to participate in a gay-affirming event.”

Still, Kirson said that her decision came with unintended consequences.

“At the same time, I deeply regret participating under the auspices of the Saudi government.”

Facing outrage from her own community

Kirson’s participation sparked outrage among her fans and LGBTQ+ advocates who accused her of performing for a “repressive regime.”

On Instagram, where she has nearly one million followers, the comedian’s comment section quickly filled with disappointment and anger.

“You really sold out… I’m super sad about this,” one follower wrote.
“Still waiting for the explanation behind your terrible decision to accept money from a horrible regime,” another added.

Many critics pointed to Saudi Arabia’s well-documented human rights record, including its criminalization of homosexuality, severe restrictions on free speech, and history of violence against dissenting journalists — most infamously the 2018 murder of Jamal Khashoggi.

“I will take full responsibility for my actions”

In her statement, Kirson offered a direct apology to her fans and the LGBTQ+ community, acknowledging that her choice caused pain and disappointment.

“I have a special relationship with my fans because of the vulnerable nature of my comedy and the trust they place in me as part of the queer community,” she said.
“To my fans: I see you. I hear you. Your voice matters to me. I love you all, and I am genuinely sorry for making a poor decision that had repercussions I didn’t fully consider.”

Kirson also revealed that she will donate the entirety of her performance fee to a human rights organization, though she did not specify which group.

“I will take full responsibility for my actions and dedicate myself to making amends, so that my words and choices reflect the respect and care you deserve,” she concluded.

A growing rift in the comedy world

The Riyadh Comedy Festival has become a flashpoint for ethical debate in the entertainment industry.

Comedians like Marc Maron, David Cross, and Atsuko Okatsuka publicly criticized the event. Cross condemned Saudi Arabia’s “oppressive regime” and its treatment of minorities, while Okatsuka — who declined the festival’s invitation — went a step further, posting excerpts of the festival’s contract online.

The leaked clause reportedly forbade performers from criticizing “the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, its leadership, or its culture,” or from making any remarks that could be perceived as “degrading” to the Saudi royal family or any religion.

That revelation only deepened public skepticism about whether participants like Kirson truly had creative freedom.

A lesson in visibility and accountability

While Kirson’s decision has reignited conversations about the moral responsibilities of artists performing abroad, some fans and fellow comics have praised her willingness to admit fault.

“Jessica did what few comedians ever do — she took accountability,” wrote one fan on X. “That’s more than we can say for many others who performed there.”

Kirson’s apology underscores a larger dilemma facing entertainers: how to balance opportunities for representation and inclusion with the ethical implications of where — and for whom — they perform.

As she continues to navigate the fallout, Jessica Kirson’s story serves as a reminder that even acts done with good intentions can spark difficult, necessary conversations about conscience, visibility, and the price of performance.

The legal saga surrounding Justin Baldoni and The New York Times has taken another dramatic turn — and this time, the tables have turned.

On September 30, the Times filed a new lawsuit in the New York County Supreme Court, seeking to recover “costs, fees, and expenses” incurred during Baldoni’s high-profile defamation case over the film It Ends With Us.

According to court filings obtained by USA TODAY, the paper alleges it spent “not less than $150,000” defending itself from what it described as “claims that had no basis in law or fact.”

ALSO READ : Taylor Swift credits George Michael on The Life of a Showgirl and some fans ask… Who is he?

Baldoni’s production company, Wayfarer Studios, is named as the defendant in the new complaint, with the Times asserting that Wayfarer is “jointly and severally liable” for the damages caused by the “baseless” lawsuit.

“By operation of law, Wayfarer is jointly and severally liable for the damages resulting from the baseless claims brought against The Times,” the filing reads.

The origins of the legal feud

This latest move by the Times comes nearly a year after Baldoni, who directed and co-starred in It Ends With Us alongside Blake Lively, filed a $250 million defamation lawsuit against the publication.

In his original complaint, Baldoni accused the Times of publishing an exposé that included damaging allegations from Lively regarding “workplace misconduct,” including claims of sexual harassment and a “smear campaign” on set.

The dispute quickly escalated when the case was consolidated into a $400 million lawsuit that also named Ryan Reynolds — Lively’s husband — as a co-defendant.

Ultimately, Baldoni’s suit was dismissed earlier this year, with the court finding insufficient evidence to substantiate his claims of defamation.

But the Times wasn’t finished. The new filing marks a rare but pointed response from one of the world’s most powerful media organizations — one that’s clearly aiming to send a message about the costs of taking on the press.

The Times fights back

Legal experts say the Times’ counteraction is both strategic and symbolic.

“By pursuing reimbursement, The New York Times is signaling that it won’t tolerate lawsuits meant to intimidate journalists or stifle reporting,” said Jane Kirtley, a media law professor at the University of Minnesota.

In its complaint, the Times argues that Baldoni’s initial defamation case was “entirely without merit” and caused the publication to expend significant resources defending its reporting.

The paper’s attorneys assert that its journalism about the It Ends With Us production was grounded in verified sources and protected under the First Amendment — the cornerstone of U.S. press freedom.

Baldoni’s attorney pushes back

In a statement to USA TODAY, Baldoni’s attorney Bryan Freedman dismissed the Times’ lawsuit as a move by a powerful institution to “crush dissent.”

“Win, lose or draw, we refuse to cave to power brokers even in the face of seemingly impossible odds,” Freedman said. “We continue to stand tall for a reason: the pursuit of truth, in the face of giants. If the current laws protect legacy media in this manner, perhaps it’s up to us to ignite that change.”

Freedman’s fiery statement echoes a sentiment of defiance — suggesting that Baldoni, despite losing the initial case, sees himself as standing up to media overreach.

A Hollywood-meets-media showdown

The It Ends With Us controversy has blurred the lines between Hollywood drama and real-life courtroom spectacle.

The romantic film, based on Colleen Hoover’s bestselling novel, has already drawn massive attention — both for its story and for the off-screen tensions between its stars.

Insiders say the film’s production was “plagued by mistrust” and behind-the-scenes conflicts, fueling the friction that eventually led to legal fireworks.

Meanwhile, the Times continues to stand by its reporting. In a statement released shortly after Baldoni’s initial lawsuit, a spokesperson for the paper emphasized that its coverage was “accurate, fair, and deeply sourced.”

What happens next

Legal analysts believe this new lawsuit could be settled out of court, though it raises important questions about the growing trend of celebrities suing media outlets for defamation — and how news organizations are beginning to fight back.

If successful, the Times could set a precedent for holding plaintiffs financially responsible for what courts determine are frivolous or retaliatory claims.

“Media organizations are now drawing a line,” said Jeff Kosseff, a cybersecurity and law expert. “They’re saying, if you sue us without grounds, you’ll pay for it.”

While the public feud between Justin Baldoni and The New York Times may have begun as a clash over reputation, it’s now evolved into something much larger — a confrontation over the boundaries of truth, free speech, and accountability in an era where both Hollywood and journalism are under the microscope.